The following provisions of RA No.

10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, appear to be ambiguous: a) Sec. 3(j); b) Sec. 5; c) Sec. 9 par. 1; d) Sec. 13; e) Sec. 9 par. 2 in relation to Sec. 4(s); f) Sec. 4(q5) in relation to first sentence of Sec. 4(p); and g) Sec. 4(q1) in relation to second sentence of Sec. 4(p) and Sec 4(b). At the outset, in order to explain why these provisions appear to be ambiguous, it is important to define first the term ambiguity. Ambiguity means a condition of admitting two or more meanings. A statute is ambiguous when it is susceptible of more than one interpretation. Sec. 3(j) of RA 10354 states that all women needing care for postabortive complications shall be treated and counseled yet this provision also states that abortion is illegal and punishable by law. If it is illegal and punishable by law, why does the law recognize its effects? In fact, this law seeks to remedy the injurious effects of said crime. Does this mean that abortion is not illegal after all? Sec. 5 of RA 10354 states that Local Government Units (LGUs) must achieve an ideal skilled health professional-to-patient ratio. This means that if there are more people in a certain locality, LGUs should hire more skilled health professionals. However, Sec. 5 also provides that people in geographically isolated or highly populated and depressed areas shall be provided the same

level of access to health care. Does this mean that the skilled health professional-to-patient ratio in isolated areas should be the same with those areas which are highly populated? Then, if that is the case, an ideal ratio will not be achieved because it is not proportionate. Which provision should we follow? Sec. 9 par. 1 appears to be ambiguous because it states that the National Drug Formulary (NDF) shall include Hormonal Contraceptives (HCs), Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs), injectables and other safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies. However, there are HCs and IUDs out in the market that are not safe and are considered as abortifacients. Will that be included in the NDF? Sec. 13 seems to be ambiguous because it uses the word may in its first sentence, which implies that the provision is not mandatory. However, its second sentence uses the word shall, which makes it mandatory. Are LGUs mandatorily obligated under this provision to provide a mobile health care service? Sec. 9 par. 2 states that offices shall not purchase or acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will be used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent. Also, Sec. 9 states that any product or supply included or to be included in the Essential Drug List must have a certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient. A reading of these provisions will lead to an interpretation that drugs which have the capacity of being abortifacients may be included in the EDL and the prohibition extends only to the purchase of abortifacients which will be used for that purpose. Hence, the purchase of abortifacients is possible

under RA 10354. This contradicts the various provisions in the law, like in Sec. 4(s), which state that abortifacients should not be accessed by the people. Which of these interpretations should be followed? According to Sec. 4(q5), one of the component elements of reproductive health care is the prevention, treatment and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections. However, reproductive health, according to Sec. 4(p), is not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The absence of disease does not appear to be the main concern of the law yet it makes it as one of its important elements. Sec. 4(q1) provides that one of the important elements of reproductive health care is adolescent and youth reproductive health guidance and counselling. Based from this provision, reproductive health for young people between the ages of 10 to 19 [Sec 4(b)] is only limited to guidance and counselling. However, reproductive health, according to Sec. 4(p), implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life. The use of people in the definition is broad enough to cover anyone. Does this mean that the law authorizes responsible, safe, consensual and satisfying sex life among the youth or is it really limited to counselling and guidance?